If the Labour Party didn't exist, would anyone today invent it?

antrobus

stator wrote: »

The Labour party needs to shift it's focus to the young, screwed over by the baby boomers and other rich nepotistic selfish gits who think they 'earned' their ill gotten gains

It already has.

In 2015 43% of 18-24 year olds voted Labour, compared to only 27% who voted Conservatives. Labour still lost. Since then, and under 'new management' and with greater yoof appeal, things seem to have got worse.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx

The trouble is (of course) that less than half 'the young' can be bothered to vote and, more signicantly and inevitability, they tend to grow up and vote Conservative.

antrobus

steampowered wrote: »

Every developed democracy has a major political party on the left or centre left. ..

Democracies (developed or otherwise) tend to have a number of political parties. Some may be more 'left' than others in terms of local politics , but without a definition of what exactly is meant by left (or indeed right) that doesn't really get you anywhere.

westernpromise wrote: »

..But to put it another way, what does anyone want done that they need the Labour Party to exist to get done?

The issue is that for some people, the Labour Party has always been about the long march to socialism. And of course, the problem with that is socialism doesn't work. The Chinese have worked that one out, and so have a lot of other people, and thus there is little enthusiasm amongst the electorate for that project.

Conrad

antrobus wrote: »

Democracies (developed or otherwise) tend to have a number of political parties. Some may be more 'left' than others in terms of local politics , but without a definition of what exactly is meant by left (or indeed right) that doesn't really get you anywhere.

Voters believe in fairness. But their idea of fairness combines both left and right.


Swing voters sit on the right on some issues and on the left on others. They take a tough line on crime and welfare and want less immigration.


Unlike political activists, swing voters don’t have an all-encompassing ‘worldview’. Instead they are driven by principles like family, fairness, hard work and decency. They get angry at those seen to be playing the system and about Labour giving a green light to !!!!!!!!!!s, health tourists and foreign and domestic criminals, and wanting to hand over vast compensation for slavery (a long held Corbyn ideal) and wars such as Iraq. Idealism and virtue signalling over practical policies for decent hard working citizens.

stator

Boredatwrork wrote: »

There are plenty of baby boomers that dont have a pot to P in, this convienent scapegoat is flawed. And i'm pretty sure those who did well, did it to better their personal situation (like anyone does), and not to spite future generations. You talk like it was a conspiracy, its a bit ridiculous.

Nope. All pensioners get massive hand outs and they're not even means tested. Freebies coming out their rear ends. Plus they're bankrupting the NHS.
Plus the guaranteed minimum pension income (which is means tested) is over £140 per week. So no pensioner has to survive on less than £140 per week, which is double what job seekers allowance is. I think you could buy a lot of pots with that money and urinate in any you want.
Plus they've been exempted from all the cuts to housing benefit, council tax benefit , bedroom tax etc etc etc

steampowered

westernpromise wrote: »

No it's not, it's the whole point of the thread :wall:

There is a difference between motive and outcome.

It is very important to distinguish between the two. Attacking someone's motives is completely different to disagreeing with them.

It is possible to respectfully disagree with someone without attacking their motive or saying they are a liar or saying they are motivated by envy.

You could have just said say that you disagree with Labour's policies, without making an unnecessarily personal attack on people's motives for supporting them.

steampowered

michaels wrote: »

Surly the issue is the UK does not have a political party of the centre / centre left any more and also does not have a party for right/centre right remainers. Nulabour did occupy this area but no one does now.

I think the party for right wing remainers is the Conservatives; and the party for centre left people is Labour.

The way our political system has been set-up encourages the existence of two dominant parties. Both of those parties need to represent a broad spread of opinion, so people simply have to go with the party which they agree with more while accepting that they won't agree with what some of that party does.

If we had a different political system, such as PR, you would see a larger number of parties. I don't think that's a good thing though.

The issue is that for some people, the Labour Party has always been about the long march to socialism. And of course, the problem with that is socialism doesn't work. The Chinese have worked that one out, and so have a lot of other people, and thus there is little enthusiasm amongst the electorate for that project.

I don't think this is true. Political parties evolve over time. The origins of the Tory party were supporting the accession of James II to the throne. I'm not sure that is still relevant today.

If the Labour party had not replaced the Liberals as the main opposition in the early 20th century, I am sure pretty much exactly the same people who are currently in the Labour party would have joined the Liberals instead.

You give the example of China. The Chinese Communist Party which has total control over all levels of Chinese governments has a commitment to communism in its constitution - certainly much more stark than anything in Labour's constitution. That doesn't always get put into practice ...

HornetSaver

westernpromise wrote: »

AFAICT all Labour is for now is to provide a pretext for envy, by making out that resenting someone else's harder work and greater success is a respectable moral position, rather than a shameful personality flaw.

This part of the argument is specious, as it makes the presumption that capitalism is perfect and that therefore someone's income, wealth and contribution to the economy and/or society will be in perfect alignment.

If this were the case there would be no need for government of any description, and therefore the question would be moot as the answer would be "of course not, no-one would create any political party".

But to put it another way, what does anyone want done that they need the Labour Party to exist to get done?

The one good reason for the Labour Party's existence is to ensure that there's a floor below which the rights of those whose abilities are limited but effort is without question cannot fall. To prevent a "race to the bottom", if you like. Unfortunately, having at least a credible chance of winning an election is a pre-requisite for being able to achieve that goal.

Most of its other positions, I agree, are either superfluous, or redundant to parties or organisations better able to champion those specific causes.

Boredatwrork

stator wrote: »

Nope. All pensioners get massive hand outs and they're not even means tested. Freebies coming out their rear ends. Plus they're bankrupting the NHS.
Plus the guaranteed minimum pension income (which is means tested) is over £140 per week. So no pensioner has to survive on less than £140 per week, which is double what job seekers allowance is. I think you could buy a lot of pots with that money and urinate in any you want.
Plus they've been exempted from all the cuts to housing benefit, council tax benefit , bedroom tax etc etc etc

Can you confirm the rate of the tax brackets the baby boomers have put in throughout the years also, is it less or more compared with nowadays?

Also, why you think any of what you said concludes they, how do you put it "screwed over by the baby boomers and other rich nepotistic selfish gits who think they 'earned' their ill gotten gains" is their a reason you think they are all evil, and any worse than anyone else?

HornetSaver

Boredatwrork wrote: »

Can you confirm the rate of the tax brackets the baby boomers have put in throughout the years also, is it less or more compared with nowadays?

Also, why you think any of what you said concludes they, how do you put it "screwed over by the baby boomers and other rich nepotistic selfish gits who think they 'earned' their ill gotten gains" is their a reason you think they are all evil, and any worse than anyone else?

They rode on the sacrifices of their parents for the opportunities afforded to them their working lives, and are putting ever more emphasis on ensuring their children carry the can for their retirement.

That they, like everyone else before and since, worked hard and made the best of the situations available to them does not invalidate the view the person you quoted expressed.

westernpromise

HornetSaver wrote: »

This part of the argument is specious, as it makes the presumption that capitalism is perfect

No it doesn't. It makes the presumption that outcomes in most areas of human activity are certain to be unequal. A tiny privileged handful get Olympic gold medals while 7 billion of the rest of us don't, but nobody suggests Olympians should have their medals confiscated. Almost nobody is able to become prima ballerina at the Royal Ballet but nobody suggests Darcey Bussell should have been festooned with dumbells and sash weights to lower her performance to that of the average Joanna. Some people are better looking than others and have better lives as a result but nobody proposes a programme of state disfigurement of good-looking people to make us all equally ugly.

The fact that people do suggest this when it comes to other people's money points unerringly to this being all about economic envy, and about greed and entitlement to what others have. Envy is a wicked and shameful motivation for any course of action and has been accurately identified as a sin for thousands of years. Therefore any party that exists to dignify, spread and perpetuate it is morally incompetent, just as a party set up to dignify, spread and perpetuate anti-Semitism is morally incompetent.

I am trying to establish if there is anything a Labour Party is needed for if it is not for the above (and so far in this thread we have seen it spades). I struggle to think of something we "need" a Labour Party for, in order for that something to come about. A Conservative-led coalition introduced gay marriage, so we don't need Labour to do that. We need a Conservative interest to speak up for taxpayers and to hold the view that the state should be accountable to them for what it takes, which should be as little as possible; nobody else will advocate that.

But I really struggle to think of anything respectable that we need a Labour Party for. You can have centre left parties, and most countries do, but they don't generally consort with the IRA, or lie to start to wars, or reintroduce filthy Dickensian workhouses, or turn a blind eye to !!!!!philia by their client groups, for example. So if not those things, what do we need Labour for? What's its job in a post-union, post-Communist, post-identity politics century, that can't be done by the Lib Dems?